I would go for a dedicated macro lens, they can be used for a lot more then just macro, here are some shots I got with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro.

Love the images!!!! It made me go see what the cost of sigma is...and uggg...it's $969, $769 with rebate...If I was in ---I am gonna start doing a lot more macro mode then I'd have no problem dropping that kind of $$$ (in fact...I'd be asking to see more images from this sigma, and more from the canon 100L...and 180L because I'd want the very best tool for the job). But as of now, my resources have to go to places that give more of an impact to my overall needs. I'd like to solve this without spending much...hence why tubes or close-ups seem to be winning in my mind.

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?

Cropping increases perceived noise (for a given output size), and costs you MP. A close-up lens reduces IQ, although slightly - the teleconverter analogy above was a good one. A tube doesn't directly decrease IQ at all - it's just filled with air. Yes, it 'stretches a lens beyond its specification' by reducing both the minimum focus distance and the maximum focus distance. That doesn't affect IQ. However, since you're in effect enlarging a central portion of the image circle to fill the frame, lens flaws are magnified (e.g., spherical aberration, etc.).

So, basically with either a close up lens or a tube, the better the IQ of the lens it's used with, the less you'll notice a decrement in IQ. I use a 25mm tube with my 600/4 (not for 'macro' since it only adds 0.04x mag, but so I get a 3' closer MFD), and there's no discernible IQ loss.

Close-up filters are fun to play with, but the cheap ones are really terrible IQ wise, and the proper ones are so relatively expensive that I chose to get some cheap tubes and save for a decent macro/portrait lens. (Sold my Sigma 70-300APO super macro seeing as it was much worse than the cheapest +10 filter on my old nifty fifty.Still, the cheap filters are fun to play with and always fits in a pocket, whereas (as already stated) the tubes takes a little more care and patience to use.I have only tried the cheapest filters and they are so soft that I only really found them usable for playful abstract stuff (which CAN have its merit :D actually sold a print of the attached close-up filter experiment for the same price as the print+the filter :D )

Try m42 Flektogon 35mm. Not sure if IQ is enough for u tough. Would just be a really really cheap way n(50$?) to check how much u are into macro photography. some samples i did on APS-C (minimum focus distance is 16cm with the lens. im using 2.8 zebra one). oh and its a nice lens anyway XD

Another option you may consider is to get Nikon or OM adapter and get some older macro lenses like Nikkor 55/3.5 or 50/2.8 or some Zuiko OM 50/3.5. I used them on 5D and really love the results, most of them are below 100 USD on eBay with additional 10-15 USD for adapter. Here is link to the last 3 I took with Nikkor 55/3.5 on 5DMKII: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29666272@N05/sets/72157633362426637/

When I shot weddings...70-200/2.8L IS with Tube 25 for rings if I was too lazy (or busy) to get the 100/2.8 USM with ringlight out. Just hold a flash off to the side for some modeling (that's what the assistant is for) and it'll get you in for perfect full-frame rings.

SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question. As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots. It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking. I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.

SO that leads to options. And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$.

Lenses:

100 2.8100L 2.8180L 3.5

or, I could go with an extension tube ---what are your thoughts on extension tubes? They are a fairly cheap fix which would get me in a bit closer, and I'd be able to use those on all my longer lenses.

That one in particular is would fit my 85 1.8 --- its the cheapest option by far, but, again I have to wonder if that's enough. Do I need the versatility of the extension tube? Or, should I bag all of those ideas and snag one of the above mentioned lenses (I see the 180 macro used all the time on B&H...and I have heard that the 100L is also good for portraits...but, with a 85 1.8 and the 70-200, would I really use a 100 macro for portraits?)

Again, it's not like I plan on diving into the insect world (yeah, of course once I can I probably will, but thats not the main idea here). Pretty much just wanting a way to get tighter shots of wedding rings, and looking to do so without spending an arm and a leg (I'd much rather snag a 135L than a macro lens..)

On the other end of things...I am considering a 2x teleconverter too. I have heard much more about those though...

Here is my macro experience:

2 years ago I wanted 100 non L macro but in that moment here wasn't available so I bought 100L. I used 100L for about 8 month and after that I sold it because I thought (and I think) the L is too expensive for my needs and the IS is useless for me - in macro I always use flash. I bought and tried close-up filters (not 500D or 250D but kenko AC +3), 25mm extension tube and all combinations of extube-kenko-teleconverter 1.4x mounted on 70-200. The best results was from extube + 40 pancake + kenko or only extube+40 pancake.2 month ago I bought 100 non L and I think this is the best and the final solution for my macro needs and all the money I spend on extube and filters are lost.

It all kinda boils down to consistency...it is always possible to take an occasional great image using inferior gear but, it's a lot easier to consistently do it using superior gear.

Logged

The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever. A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.http://1x.com/member/chauncey43

I was going to suggest like someone else did, get yourself a M42 lens of some description.

I have a Helios 44M 58mm f2.0 which I've gotten great results with using an extension tube. I imagine a 24mm will be enough but mostly they come as a pack of three when you get them used off ebay (12, 24 and 36).

I paid £10 for the lens in mint condition, £8 for a fotodiox adapter (worth it over the cheap chinese adapters, you can find it on amazon) and £2.50 for the extension tubes. Google tells me that is $32.

The Helios is also an incredibly characterful lens on its own with the famous swirly bokeh, the later versions of it don't have as much swirl as the earlier versions. They are pretty small so if you pop the whole set up in the bag it will be much less faff than changing extension tubes on your normal lenses, it costs less than modern extension tubes and I quite like having a manual aperture ring on lenses for close ups. However, there is obviously no AF and using a 36mm tube the difference where focus is shifts about 2cm between near and infinity on the lens so focusing will be done by your feet an framing will be a bit more challenging. With a shorter extension ring it might be a bit easier and then just crop a little in post if needed

That's the crux of the issue right there. 100 2.8 used is $400. Tubes or attachments are half that cost. For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial? (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)

Your clients likely won't notice an IQ difference. You might not, even. What you will notice is the difference in convenience.

+1

Enjoy the added flexibility that my two extension tubes (Canon EF12 and EF12II) give me with all my lenses, however, having to take them on and off with varying focal distances is a pain. Additionally, I have noticed that AF is affected when using ETs (slightly slower, sometimes hunts). I would really like a dedicated macro, for reasons of convenience alone. I can't argue with the price I paid for the ETs (one was free after I sold the TC that came with it - guy had no idea what he was selling, and the other was only $29).

I would go for a dedicated macro lens, they can be used for a lot more then just macro, here are some shots I got with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro.

Love the images!!!! It made me go see what the cost of sigma is...and uggg...it's $969, $769 with rebate...If I was in ---I am gonna start doing a lot more macro mode then I'd have no problem dropping that kind of $$$ (in fact...I'd be asking to see more images from this sigma, and more from the canon 100L...and 180L because I'd want the very best tool for the job). But as of now, my resources have to go to places that give more of an impact to my overall needs. I'd like to solve this without spending much...hence why tubes or close-ups seem to be winning in my mind.

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?

I'd love to hear more thoughts and see more images taken with tubes and close-ups. Because right now, the general consensus is to break my budget..

So, I will layout my general for the year gear plan so you can get a better idea of my dilemma, which may lead to more sound advice:

So, with all that said, a 12mm tube is about $90. Using existing tools and cropping will cost me $0.00. Some say the tubes are a great stop gap, others say they are rubbish. I'm trying to read between the lines here and it basically comes down to that question:

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?